Wright Henry M, Loushine Robert J, Weller R Norman, Kimbrough W Frank, Waller Jennifer, Pashley David H
Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912-1244, USA.
J Endod. 2004 Oct;30(10):712-5. doi: 10.1097/01.don.0000125876.26495.20.
The dilemma of diagnosing and possibly treating dentinal cracks continues to present a challenge in endodontics. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the effectiveness of transillumination and dyes in identifying root-end dentinal cracks. Fifty maxillary central incisors were decoronated, and the canals were instrumented to an ISO size 50 at the working length. The apical 3 mm of the roots was resected, and cracks were artificially created in the apical dentin. Four independent examiners evaluated the root ends at x8 magnification with a surgical operating microscope using transillumination (group 1), sodium fluorescein dye (group 2), caries detect dye (group 3), methylene blue dye (group 4), and methylene blue plus transillumination (group 5). The examiners' ability to identify root ends correctly with and without cracks was analyzed by comparing the data with the predetermined standard (cracked and noncracked) using logistic regression analysis. All techniques used were shown to be more effective than random chance at diagnosing cracks. The areas under the curve of the different techniques were as follows: transillumination, 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.93); sodium fluorescein, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.86); caries detector, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.63-0.89); methylene blue, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.84); and methylene blue plus transillumination, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70-0.94). Thus, the crack assessment techniques that gave the best discrimination between cracked and noncracked specimens, regardless of rater, was methylene blue plus transillumination. This study emphasizes the usefulness of transillumination along with magnification in detecting dentinal cracks.
在牙髓病学中,诊断并可能治疗牙本质裂纹的难题依旧是一项挑战。这项体外研究的目的是比较透照法和染料在识别根尖牙本质裂纹方面的有效性。选取50颗上颌中切牙,去除牙冠,将根管预备至工作长度时的ISO 50号。切除牙根根尖3毫米部分,并在根尖牙本质中人工制造裂纹。四名独立检查者使用手术显微镜,在8倍放大倍数下,通过透照法(第1组)、荧光素钠染料(第2组)、龋齿检测染料(第3组)、亚甲蓝染料(第4组)以及亚甲蓝加透照法(第5组)对根尖进行评估。通过使用逻辑回归分析,将数据与预先确定的标准(有裂纹和无裂纹)进行比较,分析检查者正确识别有无裂纹根尖的能力。结果显示,所有使用的技术在诊断裂纹方面都比随机猜测更有效。不同技术的曲线下面积如下:透照法为0.81(95%置信区间[CI],0.69 - 0.93);荧光素钠为0.72(95% CI,0.58 - 0.86);龋齿探测器为0.76(95% CI,0.63 - 0.89);亚甲蓝为0.70(95% CI,0.55 - 0.84);亚甲蓝加透照法为0.82(95% CI,0.70 - 0.94)。因此,无论评估者如何,在区分有裂纹和无裂纹标本方面表现最佳的裂纹评估技术是亚甲蓝加透照法。本研究强调了透照法结合放大倍数在检测牙本质裂纹方面的实用性。